The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'll try make this as intelligent as I can but that might be difficult.
I want your views on people who protect their house/family etc when someone breaks in. Not what happened to the guy who shot and killed one kid and injured another (Mr Martin I think) as I know that has been discussed to death on here before.
For me I think a lot of our laws are totally messed up and it now seems more criminals are taking legal action when something happens to them which to me just seems so stupid and wrong.
If someone was to break into my house tonight I personally wouldn't hold back at causing them pain. (of course I would make sure I put my wallet and car keys in their pocket and then a few cuts on my arms to say to the police he had stole from me and attacked me as I'm pretty sure that he would find a way to take some action against me in court even though he was breaking into my house)
What annoys me is that someonee could break into your house, steal, harm your family, rape someone etc and we have very little rights to stop them.
So how far should we be allowed to go to protect our family and home?
I think as soon as they step foot inside your house you should have the right to prevent them from stealing and causing harm to your family by any means possible.
I want your views on people who protect their house/family etc when someone breaks in. Not what happened to the guy who shot and killed one kid and injured another (Mr Martin I think) as I know that has been discussed to death on here before.
For me I think a lot of our laws are totally messed up and it now seems more criminals are taking legal action when something happens to them which to me just seems so stupid and wrong.
If someone was to break into my house tonight I personally wouldn't hold back at causing them pain. (of course I would make sure I put my wallet and car keys in their pocket and then a few cuts on my arms to say to the police he had stole from me and attacked me as I'm pretty sure that he would find a way to take some action against me in court even though he was breaking into my house)
What annoys me is that someonee could break into your house, steal, harm your family, rape someone etc and we have very little rights to stop them.
So how far should we be allowed to go to protect our family and home?
I think as soon as they step foot inside your house you should have the right to prevent them from stealing and causing harm to your family by any means possible.
Page:
I agree wholeheartedly, in this day and age the victim of crime seems just as likely to be penalised as the criminal. Over the last several years I have had 2 bags nicked from the kitchen. One at 3.00 am on a morning (door locked), one at 5.00 pm (door unlocked).
The problem exists though that my idea of reasonable force, the theiving scums' idea of reasonable force and the bleeding heart liberals ideas are all different.
I think that this is where the whole idea of reasonable force then enters a very grey area.
The problem exists though that my idea of reasonable force, the theiving scums' idea of reasonable force and the bleeding heart liberals ideas are all different.
I think that this is where the whole idea of reasonable force then enters a very grey area.
There was a story in my local paper about three youths who attempted to mugg/beat up a guy walking home late one night. Unbeknown to them, this guy was a black belt in karate and he kicked their proverbial backsides.
This is where it gets interesting. The guy goes to the police station to report the incident and he claims a couple of them might have broken bones. Then he's inform by the police officer on duty that if they (the would be muggers) came forward to identify him, HE would be liable to be prosecuted and/or a civil case bought against him.
Of course, there was an uproar over this and, needless to say, the criminals didn't come forward. They were probably embarrassed by the beating they got.
But this is an example of things getting out of hand isn't it? I agree with Sag on this one.
This is where it gets interesting. The guy goes to the police station to report the incident and he claims a couple of them might have broken bones. Then he's inform by the police officer on duty that if they (the would be muggers) came forward to identify him, HE would be liable to be prosecuted and/or a civil case bought against him.
Of course, there was an uproar over this and, needless to say, the criminals didn't come forward. They were probably embarrassed by the beating they got.
But this is an example of things getting out of hand isn't it? I agree with Sag on this one.
the broken bones means the attacking was harsh and violent, so maybe he was in the wrong?
Unbeliever wrote:
> There was a story in my local paper about three youths who attempted
> to mugg/beat up a guy walking home late one night. Unbeknown to them,
> this guy was a black belt in karate and he kicked their proverbial
> backsides.
Something similar happened to a mate of mine.
Myself, and two of my mates were sitting on a wall outside his grans house after playing at the park, we had a baseball bat, glove, ball and a football in his grans garden on the otherside of the wall.
Some guy ran up, punched the first of my friends then pulled out a knife and demmanded we give him all we had.
As we tried to plead with him that we had nothing my mate stephen slowly grabbed the bat from behind the wall and then smashed the guy on the legs knocking him down and we all jumped on him and got the knife.
The police came and took the guy away and because we were only 15 said its unlikely that we could face any legal action but it could be possible. To me though it was just self defence and I dare to think what could have happened.
> There was a story in my local paper about three youths who attempted
> to mugg/beat up a guy walking home late one night. Unbeknown to them,
> this guy was a black belt in karate and he kicked their proverbial
> backsides.
Something similar happened to a mate of mine.
Myself, and two of my mates were sitting on a wall outside his grans house after playing at the park, we had a baseball bat, glove, ball and a football in his grans garden on the otherside of the wall.
Some guy ran up, punched the first of my friends then pulled out a knife and demmanded we give him all we had.
As we tried to plead with him that we had nothing my mate stephen slowly grabbed the bat from behind the wall and then smashed the guy on the legs knocking him down and we all jumped on him and got the knife.
The police came and took the guy away and because we were only 15 said its unlikely that we could face any legal action but it could be possible. To me though it was just self defence and I dare to think what could have happened.
I agree that maximum force should be allowed to be used against the intruder IF it can be proven that they had broken in and intended to steal/harm.
The reason I stipulate this is that if I was invited into someone's house and went in, they could beat me up and claim that I had broken in. I don't think that you should be allowed to hurt someone JUST because that person is inside your house.
If it is proved that they had broken in, then by breaking in, they are forfeiting their rights to claim compensation/ sue the house owner etc. I fully support the use of force against an intruder- they are scum.
The reason I stipulate this is that if I was invited into someone's house and went in, they could beat me up and claim that I had broken in. I don't think that you should be allowed to hurt someone JUST because that person is inside your house.
If it is proved that they had broken in, then by breaking in, they are forfeiting their rights to claim compensation/ sue the house owner etc. I fully support the use of force against an intruder- they are scum.
Practical Magic wrote:
> The law should say that the moment you illegally enter private
> property with criminal intent then you forfeit your legal rights until
> you leave that property.
Well said.
Do you know in Texas if you shoot a burglar (even kill them) then you won't be prosecuted at all? You've done nothing wrong according to them. In fact, there's a club that hands out $5000 to people who shoot burglars. Who'd have thought Texas might have the right idea?
> The law should say that the moment you illegally enter private
> property with criminal intent then you forfeit your legal rights until
> you leave that property.
Well said.
Do you know in Texas if you shoot a burglar (even kill them) then you won't be prosecuted at all? You've done nothing wrong according to them. In fact, there's a club that hands out $5000 to people who shoot burglars. Who'd have thought Texas might have the right idea?
They don't, quite simply. Okay, you can defend yourself agaisnt a burglar but to get a reward for it? That's just plain wrong.
*thinks of American History X*
*thinks of American History X*
Clazon wrote:
> the broken bones means the attacking was harsh and violent, so maybe
> he was in the wrong?
No, broken ribs rather than limbs. And bruises.
> the broken bones means the attacking was harsh and violent, so maybe
> he was in the wrong?
No, broken ribs rather than limbs. And bruises.
ribs are unbelievably painful if you break them so...
i like the idea of waving your rights when you tresspass idea
i like the idea of waving your rights when you tresspass idea
Unbeliever wrote:
> They don't, quite simply. Okay, you can defend yourself agaisnt a
> burglar but to get a reward for it? That's just plain wrong.
It isn't the state that gives them the reward, just some rogue people types I think. Anyway, you have to admit, it's one hell of a deterrent.
> They don't, quite simply. Okay, you can defend yourself agaisnt a
> burglar but to get a reward for it? That's just plain wrong.
It isn't the state that gives them the reward, just some rogue people types I think. Anyway, you have to admit, it's one hell of a deterrent.
Page: